topic by
real watcher
8/22/2002 (21:41) |
|
Commentary: The Bush Doctrine Of Stupidity And Greed
In the War on Terrorism, front-line firefighters are shortchanged,
homeland defenses are delayed, the military is given expensive yet
useless weapons, and the rich are rewarded with huge tax breaks.
By Regis T. Sabol
I’m confused.
George Bush has declared that
America is at war against terrorism.
“The War Against Terrorism” is
accepted as fact. We see the phrase
on every major network news
program.
George Bush has also called upon
Congress to create a Department of
Homeland Security to protect America
from terrorist attacks.
Yet George Bush announced last week that he would not spend $5.1 billion
appropriated by Congress for homeland security measures. Bush said he was
withholding the money to teach Congress a lesson about fiscal restraint. We’re not
going to have any foolish spending on frills and such while there’s a war going on,
seemed to be the message.
This wasteful spending package included money for home defenses, military
spending, foreign aid, AIDS treatment, and relief for victims of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. Specifically, it included $340 million to fund many of the nation’s 18,000
fire departments. Of that sum, $150 was earmarked for equipment and training
grants requested by the fire departments. Another $100 million was to be used to
improve communications systems for firefighters, police officers, and other
emergency personnel, as well as $90 million for long-term health monitoring of
emergency workers at the Ground Zero site.
Needless to say, the nation’s firefighters have not taken kindly to Bush’s
demonstration of fiscal restraint. The International Association of Fire Fighters
voted unanimously at its annual convention in Las Vegas last week to boycott a
national tribute to firefighters who died on Sept. 11. Bush is expected to speak at
the Oct. 6 ceremony in Washington, D.C.
“The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big
photo opportunity,” declared R. Michael Mohler of the Virginia Professional Fire
Fighters Local 774. “We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with
us.”
Bush did show his support for firefighters, however. He spoke to the convention,
expressing his sympathy and admiration for the firefighters who responded to the
terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. Bush wasn’t actually at the
convention. He sent a videotape.
Bush’s heartfelt sentiments didn’t convince IAFF general president Harold
Schaitberger. “Don’t lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in
the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe,”
Schaitberger said. “President Bush, you are either with us or against us. You can’t
have it both ways.”
Bush, of course, has always wanted to have it both ways. Consider his campaign
mantra: compassionate conservative. That’s what we call an oxymoron, a
contradiction in terms.
As Frank Rich of The New York Times pointed out, if Bush were serious about fiscal
responsibility, he would have vetoed the $190 billion in farm subsidies that small
family farms will be lucky to see a drop of. Rich estimated that Bush would have to
cut spending by $5 billion five days a week for more than a year to compensate for
his $1.35 trillion tax giveaway to the rich.
While lots of American families got a $600 check from the U.S. Treasury last year
as part of the tax cut, the really big money doesn’t begin to kick in until this year.
That’s when taxpayers in the top bracket reap their rewards. To put it another way,
unless your income is more than $297,000 or have an estate larger than $2
million, you don’t qualify for membership in the tax cut club.
Bush did call for and received a $57 billion increase in military spending to fight the
War on Terrorism. But how do nuclear submarines, B2 bombers, F-16 fighters,
Abrams tanks, and the greatest boondoggle of them all, the National Defense
Shield, enable us to track down small terrorist cells squirreled away in hideouts
just about anywhere there is a spark of anti-Western hostility?
The plain truth is they don’t. And Bush knows that.
Bush’s idea of a war against terrorism is attacking Iraq. And he intends to do it no
matter who questions the wisdom of this madness, even leaders of his own party,
Henry Kissinger, and his father’s National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft. Bush
says he’s listening to voices of dissent. “I am aware that some very intelligent
people are expressing their opinion about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen very
carefully to what they have to say.” Bush was speaking from Crawford, Texas, far
away from that madding crowd of worry warts in Washington.
Although Bush promised, “I’ll continue to consult,” and added, “Listen, it’s a healthy
debate for people to express their opinion [sic] (Bush never has been very good
with that whole grammar thing.), the only consultees down in Crawford right now
are Cheney, Rummy, Condee, Richard “Kill Saddam” Perle, and King Karl Rove.
Perhaps, that’s why Bush also said, “But America needs to know, I’ll be making up
my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own
country plus our friends and allies.”
In other words, those “very intelligent people” who question going to war against
Iraq can say all they want, but they don’t have a seat at the table where the real
plans are being made. Only those who have signed on to war are making the
plans. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, the only member of the administration
to have actually fought in and commanded troops in war, was sent packing.
I wonder if any of Bush’s superhawks have children or grandchildren who would be
put in harm’s way should America invade Iraq. I doubt it. I do know that the
children of firefighters, police officers, and working men and women all over
America will be among the 250,000 troops needed for such a military adventure.
And the war will be financed on the backs of the vast majority of Americans who
carry the country’s tax burden and not from the pocketbooks of the wealthy few
whose children will most likely not be fighting on the streets of Baghdad.
If Bush does attack Iraq, the body bags won’t just be coming home from the
Middle East. Americans will be under attack abroad and, most likely, at home. Bush
won’t win a war against terrorism. He will create a war of such carnage and
ferocity and with so many unforeseen repercussions that all of us will reap this
wicked whirlwind.
Regis T. Sabol is contributing editor to Intervention Magazine. He is also
editor of A New Deal: and online magazine of political, social, cultural,
literary, and artistic thought.
|
|